Draft Review of: The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism

This review was written by Paul G. King, PhD in response to an article that represents the typical lies and misleading tone of everything published by the mainstream media today. I highly suggest that you take the time to read this and that you urge your friends and loved ones to read this also. WE ARE BEING LIED TO. This review is fantastic and has tons of good sources (see the actual pdf for link to all sources).

The full article can be accessed at: http://dr-king.com/docs/130705_DrftRevu%20TheVeryThickLineBetweenRaisingConcernsAndDenialism_b.pdf

Draft Review of:
“The Very Thick Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism
By Christie Wilcox | June 19, 2013 8:00 am”
The writer’s title is an interesting choice of words because the thickness of the “Line Between Raising Concerns And Denialism” and its placement are obviously based on subjective assessments — not objective evaluations.
“The real question is, which side of the line are studies that lack scientific rigor on?”
To this researcher, the answer depends upon the nature of the question being asked and is limited to those questions that science can answer.
For the subjects that this writer discusses, this reviewer finds that there are studies that lack rigor with regard to several aspects of the dispute between those who seek to maintain and enlarge the status quo in a given controversial issue for their direct and indirect benefit and those who seek to ensure that the safety (not the often-substituted “lack of proof of harm”) of any disputed practice has been rigorously proven.
“Recently, Kara Moses asked Guardian readers: ‘Should we wait for conclusive scientific studies before becoming concerned about an issue?’ Her personal answer was no; that special interest groups should perform and publicize their own findings. ‘I believe they should be given a voice,’ she concluded, ‘not dismissed out of hand for lacking the scientific rigour demanded by professional scientists.’
Quick to support her was Treehugger writer Chris Tackett. ‘The point here is that scientific proof matters in science, but it shouldn’t necessarily be what determines our actions,’ he wrote. ‘We can intuit that some things are unwise or dangerous or against our values without needing reams of scientific data to back up our concerns.’ While Kara’s piece talked only about the use of glyphosate (the pesticide known by its brand name RoundUp), Chris used it to attack both the pesticide’s use and Monsanto GM crops.
I understand where they are coming from, but the hair on the back of my neck bristled reading those words. I think they’re both getting into very dangerous territory (or, in the case of Chris’ comments later, happily dancing around in it).”
While this reviewer would agree that the writer is entitled to “think” what she chooses, it is not clear that she understands “where they are coming from” or, for that matter, who is “reading those words”.
“The trouble is, it’s one thing to notice a potential danger and raise a few alarm bells to get scientists to investigate an issue — it’s a whole other to publicize and propagandize an unsubstantiated fear despite evidence against it.”
Here, the writer begins by confusing the noticing of “a potential danger and …” that is implicitly associated with “the use of glyphosate” or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” with what the people have a right to do, “to publicize and propagandize” what they perceive as a danger even when there is purportedly “evidence against it”.
Moreover, because this writer makes numerous assertions without providing any citations or footnotes to support or substantiate her views, this reviewer is compelled to discount the writer’s statements when, without any documented proof, they attempt to discredit the views expressed by others.
“The former is important, as Kara suggests, and should occur. I have no problem with non-scientists raising honest concerns, if their goal is to have the concerns considered — so long as they’re actually willing to hear what the evidence has to say.”
Here, the writer attempts to restrict the role of “non-scientists” to that of “raising honest concerns”, when the realities are that:
a. These “non-scientists” are perfectly capable of reading and un-derstanding the published literature and
b. Some who are raising these concerns are scientists who have examined the evidence and/or conducted fundamental studies that have shown serious adverse long-term-ex-posure-related outcomes when “glyphosate” and/or “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops” have been studied.
Since the writer presents no proof to support her assertion that these individuals have not appropriately examined the evidence, this reviewer must counsel the reader to ignore her caveat about hearing “what the evidence has to say”.
“The latter, on the other hand, is denialism. You see, once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them.”
As a scientist, this reviewer is appalled at the writer’s unqualified claim that “once scientists have weighed in, you have to be willing to listen to them”.
First, unless all of the raw data and supporting information, including models and adjustment factors, used to generate the published results are freely available, no one should listen to the claims made in any study.
Second, unless a truly independent review of the data and supporting documentation or a truly independent rigorous duplication of a given study for which the raw data and all supporting information are available has confirmed a given publication’s findings, the results reported in the initial study should be given no scientific weight in the decision-making process.
Third, the quality of evidence rating (QER) standards1 developed for evaluating the scientific quality of evidence clearly support the skepticism that should accompany any assertion when most all of the studies are not independent2.
Thus, it is not the scientists that should be listened to but rather the results of those truly independent studies of “glyphosate” or “pesticide use or Monsanto GM products” that have an appropriately defined QER rating of “1” or, if the studies are toxicological in nature, an equivalent rating.
“When it was first suggested that vaccines might lead to autism, is” [sic; it] “was a legitimate question to ask. Kids seemed to develop autism around the same age they got their vaccines — and can you imagine if the vaccines were to blame? That would have been huge news! We would have had to revolutionize the vaccine industry, to start from scratch and figure out if we can keep these life-saving shots without screwing up our kids’ brains. One of the core foundations of our children’s public health program would have been forever shaken.”
First, this reviewer finds it odd that the writer abruptly veers away from the agricultural/food issues she has been addressing (“the use of glyphosate” and “pesticide use and Monsanto GM crops”) to address an apparently unrelated issue, the putative link between “vaccines” and “autism”, a neurological disorder diagnosed not by some scientifically sound tests but rather by an admittedly somewhat subjective evaluation of the symptoms and the behaviors observed in developing children.
Here, for whatever reason, the writer, Christie Wilcox, begins by laying out an “imagine if” scenario about the established link between the current recommended vaccination program in the USA and the chronic childhood disease epidemics that this ever-growing vaccination program has caused and is causing by focusing on one of these epidemics, the purportedly most-difficult-to-prove epidemic, the epi-demic of “autism”.
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Nonetheless, as one of those truly independent scientists, this reviewer has been continually engaged in the study of the issues surrounding vaccine safety and vaccination effectiveness for about 14 years after having worked in a wide range of capacities in firms that produced biocides (pesticides), brand-name pharmaceuticals, generic pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements for more than two decades.
The results of this reviewer’s studies have clearly established that today’s FDA-licensed and CDC-recommended vaccines have not been proven to be “safe” to the standards required by the law3 and, as such, are adulterated drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 351(a)(2)(B).
Moreover, an ever-growing number of independent scientists from around the world are publishing papers that clearly show that today’s vaccines are not as safe as they are represented to be and/or today’s vaccination programs are not effective in preventing disease and/or are not cost effective, especially in the developed countries4,5.
Finally, based on multiple independent vaccination-related surveys comparing the health of never-vaccinated children to the health of the fully vaccinated children have, from 19776,7, consistently found or, for the current on-going survey study8, are consistently finding that, depending upon the chronic diseases studied, the never-vaccinated children are, as a group, 2 to 5 times healthier than the comparison group of fully vaccinated children.
Clearly, the results from these independent studies and other sim-ilar studies have proven that “the vaccines were” and are “to blame” for the epidemics of chronic childhood diseases that we are now confronting9
Yet, this writer apparently remains in denial about these proven realities.
Given the preceding actualities, let us return to the writer’s state-ments.
“So, like they should, independent scientists investigated the concerns. They checked and double checked the safety testing. They ran and re-ran results, but they kept getting the same answer: whatever causes autism, it isn’t vaccines. A cumulative sigh of relief was uttered by doctors, nurses, scientists, parents and children around the world.”
Then, without providing any proof to support her opinion, she claims that “independent scientists investigated the concerns” and “kept getting the same answer” – essentially that whatever was causing these epidemics of chronic diseases, including “autism”, “it isn’t vaccines”.
Yet, as far as this reviewer has been able to ascertain in his investigations into articles that claim to have found “no evidence of harm” or assert that the “benefits of vaccination outweigh their theo-retical risks”, the authors of these articles are often not “independent scientists” and/or the studies themselves are often not independent studies.
In at least one instance, this reviewer has been able to prove that an epidemiological study in which the CDC not only participated but also, after refusal by two major high-stature journals, strongly recom-mended that this knowingly misleading study be published in the journal Pediatrics. The CDC made this recommendation although the assertion made in the article10 (“The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism”) was diametrically opposed to the truth, as expressed in internal emails (where, some, if not all, of the authors in the key Danish study cited in this discussion and CDC’s liaison person [Schendel] knew) that “the incidence and prevalence” [of autism] “are still decreasing in 2001”)11.
Moreover, the reality of the decrease in the prevalence and inci-dence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnoses was confirmed by:
a. The Danish health officials’ not electing to re-introduce any Thimerosal-preserved vaccines into their national childhood vaccination program after this article was published and
b. A 2010 article12 from which the prevalence rate for the incidence of individuals diagnosed with a “Pervasive Devel-opmental Disorder” [“PDD”] (known as an ASD in the USA) was found to be 1 in 1272, when the 2013 estimate in the USA for similar children estimated an ASD diagnosis rate of one child in every 50, 6-to-17-year-old children13.
After reading this review response and verifying its validity, the writer of this article hopefully will listen to the realities that:
a. Vaccination with Thimerosal-preserved vaccines is a casual risk factor for an ASD diagnosis and
b. The current vaccination programs collectively are major causal factors for the current childhood epidemics, at levels in excess of 10% of the vaccinated children in several instances, of many other chronic childhood medical condi-tions, including but not limited to, ADHD, asthma/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, epileptic disorders, obesity, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, eczema, food allergies, serious gastrointestinal disorders, solid cancers and lymphomas, and other immune-autoimmune-linked childhood diseases, disorders and syndromes, which were non-existent or vir-tually non-existent in the 1930s through the 1970s.
“Except that some people didn’t listen to the data. They called foul, saying every scientist that disagreed with them was under the thumb of Big Pharma and lying to the public. They released the results of unscientific, pet studies showing how they are right and everyone else is wrong. These anti-vaxers still won’t give up their beliefs, even though scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism.”
Based on the facts presented by this reviewer, the writer appears to be one of those people who “didn’t listen to the data”.
Moreover, the writer fails to provide any factual citations to sup-port her attack on those who have and are critically evaluating:
a. The safety and effectiveness of each FDA-approved vaccine,
b. The validity and data transparency, or lack thereof, for each published vaccine-related study, and/or
c. The effectiveness and cost-effective, or lack thereof, for each of the current CDC universal-inoculation-schedule’s recommendations for these vaccines.
Thus, the writer essentially seems to attack all studies that do not support the vaccination status quo by labeling them as “unscientific, pet studies” even when they were published in peer-reviewed journals and their authors are willing, subject to the constraints imposed by the federal government on data sharing and medical privacy, to share the raw data and ancillary information with those who seek to confirm that the data does support the findings reported by those authors.
In contrast, the datasets and ancillary information for the vaccine studies that “support” vaccination have either been reported as lost (e.g., the datasets for the CDC’s 2003 Verstraeten, et al. study14 and Fombonne’s 2006 study of children in certain Montreal schools15) or access to the data and ancillary information has simply been denied to those seeking to verify that the data does support the reported findings, or not.
Moreover, the writer’s asserting, “scientists have come to consensus that vaccines are, in no way, related to autism” does not make that statement true.
Finally, her attempt to cast the evidence-based concerns of those who question the safety and/or effectiveness of vaccines and/or the cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs as “beliefs” does not reduce the scientific validity of the evidence-based concerns raised.
Again, this time mid-paragraph, the writer changes subjects and begins to speak of “climate change” and of GMO issues.
“We see the same refusal to listen when it comes to climate change. It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists. They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed. They stick their fingers in their ears like children, shouting ‘I can’t hear you!’ — and sadly, the same attitude is found throughout the anti-GMO platform.”
Whenever this reviewer observes a writer attempting to speak for those who are opposed to the position that the writer is trying to sell to the reader, the narrative almost invariably degenerates into an attempt to portray that opposition in a demeaning manner as in the writer’s closing statements here.
Ironically, this reviewer does agree with the writer when she states, “It doesn’t matter how many studies show the same thing, or how many consensuses are reached by scientists”.
In fact, it is not the number of studies, or the number of consensuses, or even the number of scientists that matter.
What matters are the confirmed, scientific soundness of each study and the scientific validity of the consensus.
After all, at one time, the scientific consensus was that the Sun was the center of the universe; the world was flat; when burned, wood lost a substance called “phlogiston”16; and the universe was governed by Newtonian physics.
Moreover, as the reviewer’s introductory remarks clearly state,
“Finally, should anyone find any significant factual error in this review for which they have independent[a], scientifically sound, peer-reviewed-published-substantiating documents, please submit that information to this reviewer so that he can improve his understanding of factual reality and, where appropriate, revise his views and this review
[a] To qualify as an independent document, the study should be published by researchers who have no direct or indirect conflicts of interest from their ties to either those commercial entities who profit from the sale of any product or practice addressed in this review or those entities, academic, commercial or governmental, who directly or indirectly, actively promote any product or practice, the development of any product or practice, and/or programs using any product or practice covered in this review.”
he is open to any independent, scientifically sound, peer-reviewed published documents that refute his understanding of the facts.
Thus, to the extent that this reviewer and his colleagues around the world are scientists, the writer’s allegations, “They simply don’t want to question their biases. They don’t want to be informed”, are pure nonsense.
“Instead of listening to the evidence, campaign groups conduct unrigorous, unscientific and completely biased studies, dig in their heels, and stand their ground. Just look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies which have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry. The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest. I can’t agree with Kara that such studies deserve equal voice. They don’t.”
Here, the writer begins by stating prejudicial claims concerning the basis and intent of studies conducted by groups or individuals who implicitly have problems with the GMOs in food that not only rats and pigs but also humans consume.
Then, she asks us to “look at the recent anti-GM rat and pig studies”, which she claims “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
However, the links the writer provides are not to peer-reviewed journal publications establishing the validity of the claimed problems, nor to the articles in question so that we may study them, nor to the studies’ authors’ published rebuttals (if there are any) to the published criticisms of the cited studies.
Instead, the links provided are to a posting in an anonymous blog (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2013/06/the-s%C3%A9ralini-rule-gmo-bogus-study.html?utm_source=feedly), and a personal web site posting (http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/), which respectively attacked a long-term rat feeding study and a pig feeding study.
Unfortunately, the first link is an apparently invalid link as at-tempts to access it returned a “HTTP/1.0 404” error.
However, by accessing the web site, http://skeptico.blogs.com/, this re-viewer quickly found the cited entry,
“June 18, 2013
The Seralini Rule
I have a new rule for debating anti-GMO people:
If you favorably cite the 2012 Séralini rats fed on Roundup ready maize study, you just lost the argument.
If you cite this study as demonstrating any dangers in genetically modified food, you are either (a) so clueless as not to have spent 30 seconds checking to see if there are any reported problems in the study, or (b) so dishonest in citing a blatantly fraudulent study, that you are not worthy of any more serious consideration. You just lost the debate and you’re done. (Obviously you don’t lose the if you cite the study to demonstrate its flaws, only if you claim the study’s conclusions are valid.) …”.
Clearly, this intentionally anonymous blogger has an agenda that is highly biased and subjective even though this anonymous blogger claims to be objective.
From the blog entry, one can access the peer-reviewed, pub-lished article (Séralini G-E, Clair E, Mesnage R, Gress S, Defarge N, Malatesta M, Hennequin D, de Vendômois JS. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem Toxicol. 2012 Nov; 50(11): 4221-4231) at,
While this reviewer agrees that a more-robust study design might have been preferable, this reviewer notes that the designs used seem to be a copy of the “accepted” study designs used by Monsanto scientists in similar studies except that, unlike the short-term Monsanto studies, these studies continued feeding the rats for an extended period of time.
Turning to the provided valid “pig study” link, this reviewer was directly connected to http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/, which presents Mark Lynas’ views on this pig study and also provides a direct link to the peer-reviewed, published study at “http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf” (Carman JA, Vliegers HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Cinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI, Edwards JW. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. J Organic Sys. 2013; 8(1), 38-54).
Unfortunately, the information Mark Lynas provides about himself does not list any formal degrees, training or experience in the life or agricultural sciences; indicates that his major interests seem to be climatological and environmental in nature; and states that he is a “Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment”.
Further, although the writer’s claim that these studies “have been thoroughly flayed by scientists that” [sic; who] “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”, the articles to which she links and their comments fail to provide any hard evidence that these comment posters “have nothing to gain from the GM industry”.
In addition, the writer’s claim, “The groups that performed and published these “trials” weren’t asking whether GM foods are unsafe; they sought and executed sham research hell-bent on proving their beliefs, then denied any conflict of interest”, lacks the substantive proof needed to justify the allegations that she has made.
Moreover, since the studies seem to be effects studies, designed to identify and evaluate the effects of feeding high-GMO diets as compared to feeding low/no-GMO diets on the overall health of the animals fed an exclusive diet containing one type of feed or another, the studies were not, per se, designed to determine the safety of the different diets.
Thus, the writer’s negative comments about these two (2) studies are, at best, inappropriate and, at worst, defamatory.
“I’m not sure where Kara stands on the GM issue, but Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument shows in the comments. ‘I don’t need scientists to tell me that GMOs are not a good idea,’ he says. There is an astounding level of cognitive dissonance in his statements. Though Chris brings up climate change, he misses his own point. For example, he calls out deniers, saying that ‘once enough peer-review science had been completed, still maintaining disproven beliefs would not be respectable, like in the case of global warming deniers’, then doesn’t even blink when he says ‘I would dislike GMOs whether the scientific community agreed they were bad or not. Likewise, I think we should not use Roundup, whether the scientific community agrees that it is dangerous or not.’ [emphasis mine]. This is exactly the problem.”
Here, the writer is quick to notice “Chris’ clear bias towards one side of the argument”, while ignoring her own obvious bias.
However, it is inappropriate to use one person’s biases as if they are representative of all persons who oppose GMO crops because: a) the GMO crops have not been proven to be either safe in the long term or nutritionally equivalent to the non-GMO crops previously grown; b) the use of the GMO seed raises the levels of the pesticides used to treat the crops as the weeds and insect pests develop resistance to the pesticides; c) as, contrary to the claim of rapid breakdown in the environment, the levels of glyphosate and other pesticides continue to increase in our drinking water supply and food; and/or d) of some other GMO-related (e.g., bt-corn) or pesticide-related (e.g., intentional promotion of an off-label use) problem.
“GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing — and passed.”
Here, the writer makes an unsubstantiated claim, “GM crops have undergone rigorous safety testing”, which is, at best, deliberately vague, and, at worst, patently false.
Factually, GM crops have mostly only undergone short-term toxi-city, metabolism, and residue studies conducted by, or on behalf of, those firms who are marketing these GM crops.
Moreover, in some instances, the GM-crop candidate has been abandoned when it caused serious adverse effects even in the short-term studies typically conducted.
However, when it comes to long-term toxicity, metabolism, resi-due and environmental-impact studies, few, if any independent studies have been conducted.
Furthermore, the few independent, longer-term, feeding and environmental-impact studies that have been conducted have found evidence of serious adverse effects in rats and “unintended” transfer of pesticide resistance and other genetically inserted traits to other plants, principally “weeds” – making these weeds much harder to kill.
Given the preceding realities, this writer’s views are based on other than sound science and are apparently grounded in the pro-GMO propaganda that permeates the mainstream media and academia today.
“The simple fact is our fear of GM technology is based entirely on emotion. There is no science to support it.When it comes to GMOs, the anti crowd are not ‘raising concerns’—they’re denying scientific consensus.”
Continuing her biased attack on those individuals, groups and peer-reviewed studies that raise concerns about the safety of the entire GMO/pesticide paradigm, the writer again makes absolutist claims that, besides being at odds with some of the scientifically sound independent studies, are obviously biased to the extreme.
Further, those who question the Establishment’s GMO and/or pesticide paradigm are not denying any scientific consensus other than that “consensus” bought and paid for by the biotech and pesticide in-dustries and their direct and indirect supporters.
Until there are appropriate, independent, scientifically sound, long-term (greater than half of the life span of the animals studied) studies on the direct and indirect effects on the consumers of the products and their residues at every level – from the microbes, to the plants and the animals, including man – which clearly prove that the GMO/pesticide -containing and -derived products are sufficiently non-toxic17to those non-targeted individuals who are most susceptible to the adverse effects of such products, no one can logically or scientifi-cally assert that such are “safe”.
“There is a plethora of science that supports the safety record of GM foods. As the Skeptico blog pointed out, there are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded) that stand behind the safety record of GM crops.”
Accepting that there “are more than 600 studies (>125 of which were independently funded)”, this reviewer notes that the cited blog is admitting that about 80% of these studies are industry-overseen and/or industry-conducted studies – not even “independently funded studies”.
Further, independent funding does not ensure that the study is an independent study.
Given the careful choice of words by the anonymous writer of the cited blog, it would appear that very few of the studies are truly independent studies.
Finally, this reviewer has observed that any study that indicates there may be a problem with the Establishment’s GMO/pesticide paradigm and its authors are attacked by those who are a part of, or favor, the biotech and/or pesticide industries.
Thus, by not stating the number of truly independent studies that address “the safety record of GM crops” and providing a supporting peer- reviewed citation that supports that number, the writer seems to be hiding the scarcity or absence of truly independent safety studies.
“Scientists have been studying GMOs and their potential effects for decades. With every major scientific body saying the exact same thing, I simply don’t know how else to spell it out: there is a scientific consensus that GM foods are safe.”
Here, this reviewer simply reminds the reader that the tobacco industry used similar talking points in its decades-long knowing cover up and suppression of the risks associated with the smoking and/or chewing of its tobacco products, including the use of medical doctors in cigarette advertisements.
Further, making a statement, which is linked to an article that reports “the most important opposition currently facing the worldwide adoption of this technology: public opinion” clearly detracts from the assertion that “scientific consensus”, not propaganda, is being used to prove “GM foods are safe”.
In fact, the writer’s assertion is an implicit admission that the truly independent scientifically sound safety studies on GM foods have not established that they are safe.
Finally, this reviewer notes that one of the prime tactics that propagandists use is the repetition of less-than-truthful statements because such rhetoric eventually leads to increased public acceptance of such statements by those who, for whatever reasons, do not truly study the issues.
“Continuing to act as if the science is mixed or unclear about the safety of genetic modification is not raising a legitimate concern. It’s not even uninformed; it’s denialist. It’s right up there with the claims of anti-vaxers and climate deniers: that is, simply, flat-out, 100%, dead wrong.”
Contrary to the writer’s views, the independent science is clear that the long-term “safety of genetic modification” has not been established just as the “safety” of vaccines has not even been proven to the legal standards for such proofs as required of the manufacturers thereof by the applicable statutes and regulations18.
Moreover, this reviewer does not know of any “climate deniers” – all seem to admit that climate exists.
However, based on the current understanding of the independent sound science, those who have resisted the alarmist claims of “global warming” may have been right.
For a variety of reasons, the local climate is both changing and being actively modified but there is no independent, scientifically sound body of evidence that supports “global warming”.
Further, because most of the energy that warms the Earth comes from the Sun and the Sun’s energy output is currently declining, it would appear that, if anything, we might be entering a global cooling period19
Thus, based on the independent sound science, as he understands it, this reviewer finds that this writer’s assertions here may be, as she put it, “dead wrong”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s